Kristian Kilpi wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:13:11 +0300, Derek Parnell <[email protected]> wrote:
Steve Teale ([email protected]) wrote:
Now I admit that these are not method names I would have choosen, as I
would have preferred names more like ... isEmpty(), getFront(),
moveForwards(), getBack(), moveBackwards(), getElement(N), addElement(E),
but the bikeshed gods have more wisdom than me ... and not that I'm
complaining of course.
I agree. Well, even if the names of the Range methods are a bit 'odd'
for me, I guess they are ok... except for empty().
If I have a container that I wan't to use as a Range, I can't use
empty() to empty the container (i.e. remove all the elements from it). :(
And yes, *I* am complaining here. ;)
I'm accustomed to use isXyz() for checking something and xyz() for doing
something (e.g. isEmpty() + empty()). What function name should I use
for emptying the container then? removeAllElements(), makeEmpty(), or
maybe even emptyThisContainer()...? :P
Hmm, should the Range methods use some special naming convention? E.g.
rangeFront(), rangePopFront()...?
while I agree with the general point about the naming convention, I
don't see how is this a problem here since a range should be a distinct
type from the container.
that means that you have for instance:
class Tree {
void empty();
...
TreeRange preOrder();
TreeRange inOrder();
TreeRange postOrder();
}
struct TreeRange {
bool empty();
...
}
tree.empty(); // will empty the tree
auto range = tree.inOrder();
...
while (!range.empty()) { // will check if the range is empty
// do stuff
}
this might be confusing but not impossible.
